Re: [E-devel] E SVN: mike_m IN trunk/efl/src/bin: edbus edje

[Lucas De M. <luc...@pr...>]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Lucas De Marchi
<luc...@pr...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Tom Hacohen <to...@st...> wrote:
>> How is this a bug in the compiler?
>> bla = func_name;
>> and
>> bla = var_name;
>> are both valid C statements, it's a bug if they "fixed" it.
>
> both are valid, not together...  what are you trying to do here?
>
> I am not saying -Wshadow is useless. In the snippet below the warning
> is valid (and GCC 4.7 correctly warns about it):
>
> int f(void)
> {
>         return 0;
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
>         int f = 0;
>         return f++;
> }
>
> However in the following snippet there's no way the programmer would
> be confused about signal:
>
> #include <signal.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
>         int signal = 0;
>
>         return signal;
> }
>
>
> signal is a pointer to a function that lives in another TU.  What I am
> saying is essentially the same Linus said on his email I pointed out.
>
>
>>
>> Furthermore, as mike said, it does no harm, and having a warning free
>> compilation is very important.
>
> sure. and I agreed with the exception of useless warnings. For
> example, here with gcc 4.7 I didn't have the problem he "fixed".
>
>
>>
>> unused-parameter is a very useful warning, I wouldn't ignore it if I were
>> you.
>
> What am I missing?  Do you have an example in real world that turning
> this warning on discovered a bug?  I never saw one.  And this was
> after turning it on on projects that previously didn't have it.

Btw, if you want a large code base to test the hypothesis that this
indeed reveals real bugs, I suggest you to remove the
-Wno-unused-parameter from systemd's  configure.ac  or from kernel's
Makefile.


Lucas De Marchi